On Jan 18, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> The alternative which is clearly within the chair's discretion is:
>>>> " With prior permission from the chairs, a high-level prose
>>>> description of the changes to be made."
>>>> Given Roy's rationale, I think allowing a change proposal with a
>>>> high-level prose descriptions of the changes to be made would be
>>>> useful.
>>> While we have not discussed the possibility of just a high-level
>>> prose description without showing any detail, my own feeling is that
>>> it would leave too much room for misinterpretation.
>>
>> I think we should seriously consider this.
>
> I'd like to hear whether Roy has a problem with both of the alternatives I listed before we consider watering down the requirements further. Just to repeat them for the record:
>
> 1) Write the changes against a specific CVS version number of the spec. If the Change Proposal succeeds, then we will expect the changes to be applied properly to any changes as well.
> 2) Write clear definitions of all affected terms, possibly in the form of suggested edits to the terminology section, and demonstrate correct usage of the terms by suggesting specific edits to one or two representative sections.
>
> In particular, I don't think #2 is materially more work than a "high-level prose description", but it seems much less likely to lead to debates over how to interpret the Change Proposal. I'd like to hear from Roy whether he considers it acceptable, and if not, is there anything else that would work for him.
I don't have time to do any work on this for the next four months.
That was the point of my initial request that this issue be
postponed.
Honestly, unless you can prove to ME that there is a substantial
burden being imposed upon *someone* by reordering the entirely
random order that chairs have decided to call for consensus, then
it should be obvious that *MY* constraints are more important
than whatever you personally think the procedure should be.
Otherwise, you are just railroading a particular conclusion.
If someone else does the work before I have time, that's fine.
If we run out of issues to call, then that's when you
should impose a one-month deadline (because that is when this
issue would be in the critical path). Until then, this issue
is only a spec-progress blocker, not an implementation blocker,
and I really don't care to participate in this discussion
because I don't have any free time to do so.
....Roy